Colorado Midland Railway Engineering Report

[Point353]

I keep eyeballing those Athearn steamers and thinking impure thoughts...

Like this?

[nkalanaga]

"The pilot coupler sticks out about half a mile."

I'll agree that this one is excessive.  However, there are at least two reasons N scale pilot couplers stick out too far, and not much that can be done about, especially on small locos.

1:  The draft gear has to clear the pilot truck, and allow room for the truck to swing.  There isn't much room between the pilot and the truck, and N draft gear are oversized to start with.

2:  With the usual "cow catcher" pilots, the coupler has to stick out far enough for uncoupling pins on the other car to clear the pilot.  That's not a problem on the prototype, as air hoses are flexible, and the pilot can almost go under the other car in extreme cases.  Cut off the pins, and  the coupler can be moved back, but that eliminates magnetic coupling, for those who use it.  Also, many modelers wouldn't want to go to the trouble of removing all of their pins, just to use a new loco.

That said, with McHenry couplers, the spacing can be reduced, with some loss of function.  Since McHenrys have a solid shank, it can be shortened, a hole drilled in it, and a pivot pin installed.  That would eliminate most of the draft gear, allowing the coupler to be set back, but with the loss of automatic centering.  The coupler itself would still work fine.  One would still have to remove the pins for the cars to be coupled to it.

[Dave V]

"The pilot coupler sticks out about half a mile."

I'll agree that this one is excessive.  However, there are at least two reasons N scale pilot couplers stick out too far, and not much that can be done about, especially on small locos.

1:  The draft gear has to clear the pilot truck, and allow room for the truck to swing.  There isn't much room between the pilot and the truck, and N draft gear are oversized to start with.

2:  With the usual "cow catcher" pilots, the coupler has to stick out far enough for uncoupling pins on the other car to clear the pilot.  That's not a problem on the prototype, as air hoses are flexible, and the pilot can almost go under the other car in extreme cases.  Cut off the pins, and  the coupler can be moved back, but that eliminates magnetic coupling, for those who use it.  Also, many modelers wouldn't want to go to the trouble of removing all of their pins, just to use a new loco.

That said, with McHenry couplers, the spacing can be reduced, with some loss of function.  Since McHenrys have a solid shank, it can be shortened, a hole drilled in it, and a pivot pin installed.  That would eliminate most of the draft gear, allowing the coupler to be set back, but with the loss of automatic centering.  The coupler itself would still work fine.  One would still have to remove the pins for the cars to be coupled to it.

Fortunately for me, this is the "show" layout where 90% of the people seeing it won't notice or care.  And since I have my faithful-to-the-prototype RGS to keep me worried about things like pilot coupling distances and who ran what where and when, I'm perfectly fine with my half-mile pilot couplers...   

Like this?

That is a beautiful engine.  And clearly @wm3798 Lee's next project.

[wm3798]

One more engine never hurt anybody... What ends up hurting is the fleet of period rolling stock that one needs to haul around with it...

[Point353]

One more engine never hurt anybody... What ends up hurting is the fleet of period rolling stock that one needs to haul around with it...

Just get a couple of the Atlas #41821 and #41822 boxcars:



Plus this caboose:



https://shop.bachmanntrains.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=6999

[Dave V]

Major track repairs are underway on the CMRy. Wiring is being upgraded and track replaced. Two failed turnouts were replaced (the nearest one is a used Atlas #7 but works well, the farthest one is a new ME #6) and several segments of sectional track have been replaced with flex track.

[Chris333]

    

[Dave V]

Earlier in the thread, @nkalanaga correctly pointed out that D&RG 3224 would have been a narrow gauge car.  I have a healthy collection of D&RG(W) 3000-series narrow gauge boxcars in HOn3 for my RGS.  But for my N scale standard gauge CMRy, I had three 36' truss rod boxcars lettered for D&RG, two of which (Athearn) had correct standard gauge 6XXXX series numbers, and the one lettered for 3224 from MDC.

I've said many times that I'm not trying to be too particular with respect to prototype on this layout (my "side piece"), saving fidelity for my HOn3 RGS "home" layout.  So the D&RG 3224 didn't really bother me...at first.  However, having 3 D&RG boxcars to 1 CMRy boxcar was not an especially appealing ratio to me, so I decided it was time to make another home road car.  D&RG 3224--with its incorrect car number--was deemed an appropriate donor body.

Here's former D&RG 3224 as Colorado Midland boxcar 5176 after some paint and decal work.  Subtle weathering is on the to-do list:

[Dave V]

[Dave V]

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

[Dave V]

[nkalanaga]

Looks good.

[Dave V]

Here's some evening stupidity for ya...  Train was going a little fast so I found some appropriate music (88 miles per hour!) for it:

[Dave V]

The Midland isn't doing it for me anymore.  Sure, it looks OK, but it doesn't operate for crap.  I'm profoundly disappointed both in my own work and in the Atlas code 55 track I used.

After posting this thread I began thinking about rebuilding the Midland. Something perhaps slightly less cartoonish but, more importantly, more reliable in operation. Perhaps something with a separately operating branchline.  Or not.

I would use Peco code 55 and go up to something in a 3 x 6.

Now to find or invent a nice 3 x 6 N scale plan that would evoke mountain railroading but do well at shows!

[wazzou]

I'm glad to see you're committed to a redo Dave.
I think despite the cartoonishness of it, it was a Gary Larson level cartoon.
You're a terrific modeler and I'm sure you've learned plenty from the experience.
I'd encourage you to try handlaying turnouts for the redo and using ME C40 or C55 track perhaps.
I think PECO turnouts and Flex will really go the opposite direction for you.
Of course this is just my opinion and coming from someone that hasn't built even one "completed" layout in over 10 years, take it for what it's worth.